Ranking countries on innovation
July 4th, 2011
02:30 PM ET

Ranking countries on innovation

Editor's Note: This post is part of the Global Innovation Showcase created by the New America Foundation and the Global Public Square.

By Konstantin Kakaes – Special to CNN

As a child, upon meeting a friend of my parents, I would immediately ask what grade they were in. My dad explained that after your last year of high school, you stopped counting that way. People kept learning stuff, but they didn't say they were in 17th grade, or 30th grade. After a certain point, the set of knowledge is not well-ordered. MBAs are not 19th graders, or 21st graders - they're just, well, MBAs.

This is the message that the folks over at INSEAD who compiled the Global Innovation Index have yet to learn. The recently released index purports to rank 125 "countries/economies".  The "countries/economies" are ranked in "terms of their innovation capabilities and results."

Switzerland finishes 1st.  Sweden comes in a close 2nd. Singapore gets the bronze. The U.S. came in 7th, behind Hong Kong, Finland and Denmark, and just ahead of Canada. 

The presumption that the rankings are somehow meaningful undermines a lot of good and interesting analysis that went into compiling the ranking, and which is contained in the body of the INSEAD report.

The report lacks the courage of its own caveats: the "methodology adopted for the report...is extremely sensitive to modeling choices and missing data points," it says of itself. In essence, it says that being in first place versus fifth place doesn't mean very much - which is correct - but then proceeds to pretend that Mauritius' 46th place finish in the "output sub-index" means it is better at outputting innovation than Namibia (49).

If you were forced to rank countries on innovation, say by a hostage-taking macroeconomist, this is not a bad way to do it. The INSEAD ranking includes some 80 indicators.

Some are straightforward, like educational expenditure as a percentage of GDP, or net high-tech exports; others are more abstract–a single number measures political stability; others are wishful leaps, such as "national feature films per million population," which is meant to be a proxy for "creative activities". The existence of "The Lincoln Lawyer" therefore means the U.S. is marginally more creative than it would be in a world where Matthew McConaughey had never pretended to be an unscrupulous attorney, when there is a strong case to be made that the opposite is true.

Singapore's rise from 7th place to 3rd is described as a significant improvement, when the report's own fine print says that this difference is essentially the margin of error.

This is the sort of semantic gruel that passes for soup with consultants: "research is increasingly context-driven, problem-focused, application-oriented, and interdisciplinary," it says.

Aristotle was pretty interdisciplinary, back in his day, and Isaac Newton worried a lot about applications. If you can tell me what "context-driven" or "problem-focused" actually means, and why there's more of it now than in 1820, I'll personally buy you a beer.

At many junctures, the authors of the report repeat the same gambit: "There is no good way to measure X, they say. Here is a measurement of X. Here are the conclusions we draw, in granular detail, from that measurement."

Engineers have a saying for this: "garbage in, garbage out."

This is particularly a shame because, buried in the flighty statistics, there's a lot of good in the report. There are real differences between Brazil and Mexico, between the United States and the United Kingdom, between India and Indonesia.

Understanding these differences is important to policymakers who seek to facilitate innovation. The report is a step forward in that understanding, despite itself. There are enough examples sprinkled through the body of the text to make it worth reading: a new tuberculosis treatment regime in India; a new way of looking at grain storage in Argentina.

But the raison d'être of the report, the ranking of countries by innovativeness, is akin to a list of the 100 most eloquent novels - fundamentally silly in conception, and no more an aid to understanding innovation than such a list of novels would be to understanding felicity in prose.

The kid in me hopes that Oman can improve its 4th place finish in "innovation linkages," and that the Kiwis of New Zealand can do better than 8th next year in "knowledge creation".

The adult in me will be as grumpy about next year's rankings as he is about this year's.

But I'll still read the report, which will no doubt have good details buried under lazy aggregations.

Post by:
Topics: Global • Innovation

soundoff (9 Responses)
  1. j. von hettlingen

    "The INSEAD ranking includes some 80 indicators," – others are wishful leaps, such as "national feature films per million population," which is meant to be a proxy for "creative activities".
    It looks as if the students at the INSEAD need to get out of their ivory tower and put their feet on the ground.
    That's absolutely unbelievable. Who's going to read the report? Those students should have been more creative and struck the senseless indicators off their list.

    July 4, 2011 at 5:38 pm | Reply
  2. Sajid Ali Khan

    I have a very clear path to a better world but I cannot do it alone. I am a theorist just like a script writer; Who still needs the whole movie production team to make the movie. I need you to take my work forward.

    When we try to understand and fix the mess in education we keep going back to trying to improve how we teach subjects like math and science. Actually our math and science education is well set and the mess lies elsewhere. It is due to lack of even a single subject that teaches emotional intelligence.
    We are proposing a plan to create text books for a new subject that teaches emotional intelligence; which at the super mature stage is wisdom. We cannot teach wisdom directly because wisdom is the symptom of the pure self. Ignorance is a symptom of an impure self and treating the symptom does not cure the disease. A simple shift in perspective will clear away much of the current mess not just in education but also in the current physical and emotional struggles of individuals, groups and countries.

    We must wake up to the fact that wisdom is an innate property of the pure self. It is a secondary entity and so when we try to teach wisdom it is like trying to retool the fragrance of a flower! In order to improve the fragrance of a flower we need to nurture the plant. Our focus has to be on improving the quality of the I/self/mind/consciousness.

    I/self/mind/consciousness are all one and the same entity or at least so closely compounded that educating any one will educate them all and improving and changing any one of them will improve and change them all. The litmus test of the quality of each and every one of these is selflessness. By nurturing and cultivating selflessness we will be nurturing and cultivating the pure self.

    Wisdom is selflessness and selflessness can be taught. We have thousands of books on wisdom where selflessness is mentioned as one of the attributes of wisdom. We must wake up to the fact that selflessness is the power that creates wisdom and each and every attribute of wisdom is selflessness or at least every one of the attributes of wisdom is powered by selflessness. Selflessness is the currency of a pure life/self/I/mind/consciousness and even pure happiness.
    We have not only figured out how to teach wisdom we have this whole wisdom industry that will generate wisdom education by creating text books, with exercises and lessons, training for teachers and parents, and 'pure happiness' counselors etc. Wisdom coaching for adults, groups and countries, toys that teach wisdom, wisdom computer games, comic books, children stories, sitcoms, TV talk shows, movies and Wisdom Theme Parks, Wisdom Hall of Fame for every school, village, city, country and the world...We can create this wisdom industry in every country and use the income to lift the country out of poverty of resources of economics as well as the poverty of the mind.

    Yours truly
    Sajid Khan
    President
    The 4th R Foundation
    233 east, 59th Street
    NY NY10022
    212 421 4848

    July 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Reply
  3. indi

    good points. Rankings are a bit like those numbered lists people use to goose blog posts (8 Steps To Innovations, 9 Hair Tips), a necessary evil to get attention

    July 6, 2011 at 7:20 am | Reply
  4. JD Meyer

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Buy-Am​erican-vs-Going-Overseas-Misse​d-Points-on-Each-Side

    Check out my ideas on trade; it's related to innovation and includes references to Fareed Zakaria.

    July 22, 2011 at 1:17 pm | Reply
  5. Robbyn Gremer

    When Hubpages was launched, a new era of internet marketing was born. This new site, the brainchild of former Microsoft employees, was introduced as a social gathering place, a hobbyist site, and a portal for internet business owners. Hubpages is search engine friendly and provides all marketers with a substantial amount of guaranteed web site traffic. Too, Hubpages has enhanced the income levels of many affiliates including those who are associated with Amazon, eBay, Clickbank, and many others. Members can also add many features and other income sources such as RSS feeds, Google Adsense, email/list building programs, and blogs.-..""

    http://picturesofherpes.coHave a look at all of the most up to date post at our web site

    May 19, 2013 at 6:37 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,794 other followers